THE

LIBERTARIAN

ENTERPRISE

[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. To
ensure their acceptance, please try to keep them under 500
words. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail
address as you wish them to appear.]

David Friedman (The son of Milton) has described the anarchy of
Iceland's early colony in his books and articles. The gist of the
story is that there was law but no government, and no one was above
the law. The system lasted for 150 years but was eventually absorbed
by Norway, a major power at the time. I hope that Mr. Martin will read
Friedman's works and comment.

"Say, that in order to be treated as an adult, a person would have to
provide her own insurance, and that providing your own insurance means
you are an adult, with all the rights and responsibilities thereto."

That is not a good idea as to how to get the whole "when someone is an
adult" into the private sector. It has the same problems as mandatory
car insurance does, with a couple others added in for good measure.

First off, as Warren stated, such a policy would have to be purchased
with their own money or else it would be pointless. But how will a
child (by definition, anyone who does not yet have said insurance) get
their own money? Allowance and gifts from their parents are the same
as if the parents bought said policy. As long as they are a "child",
technically they can't have their own money. Its all considered in
trust with their parents. That lets the parents decide when, or if,
the child will ever be considered an adult.

Allow me to play the devils advocate here.

Requiring a someone to purchase insurance (I am assuming some type of
liability insurance) opens the door to abuses of the system by parents
and allows for the creation of a two tiered class system. Furthermore,
allowing insurance companies to cancel the policy on a person, and
thus return them to the state of non-adulthood, opens up the
possibility of abuses by con artists and shady business operators.
Lastly, it allows insurance companies to regulate what is allowed for
adults more thoroughly than government could. Here are a few examples
I thought of:

1) A parent decides, for the child's own good of course, that they are
"too young" to be allowed to buy the insurance. The child, of course,
has no money of their own - all of it being controlled by the parent.
What happens when a parents idea of "too young" is 25? Or 35? What if
the reason they don't want the child to be allowed to become and adult
is that the child has a significant trust fund that the parent is
managing for them?

2) A business owner, whose parents are dead, has been defrauding
consumers. Knowing that his scams are beginning to unravel, and that
he will be found out within a year or so, he does something so as to
convince the insurance company to cancel his policy and revert him to
non-adulthood. He has the money hidden away to live comfortably, and a
friend who - for a cut of the money - will play "parent" for a year or
two while the person avoids responsibility for the scam.

3) A person, living in a low income area, whose parents are both known
addicts and considered "high risk" by insurance companies, finds
themselves also considered "high risk". They, like their parents, find
they cannot afford to purchase the policy and also support themselves.
They then find themselves perpetually relegated to a lower class,
unable to enter legally enforceable contracts or even buy the means to
protect themselves without having someone who can afford the insurance
cosign for them. In effect, they have been relegated to a status close
to that of a slave.

4) It becomes common practice for insurance companies to consider
owning firearms as a "high risk" behavior. After all, they have to pay
out if you hurt someone else, where they don't have to if you just
happen to be raped and killed in a back alley. Soon, all the major
insurance companies refuse to insure a person who carries, or even
owns, a firearm. Only the small ones, like Billy-Joe-Bobs Guns, Bait
and Beer (insurance in the back) will. Since many respectable
businesses are hesitant to do business with someone insured through
such a small operator, people are left with a choice of giving up
their guns, or of being extremely limited as to who they can deal
with.

In closing, any system which requires an individual to do something
other than just stand up and declare that they are an adult (and make
a permanent record of it) before being considered one opens up a
Pandora's box of potential abuses.

His point is well taken that "social and economic shunning" won't work
- but I think his arguments are the least of that system's worries.
The real biggie is: whatever makes y'all think people will care?

I'll give an example. Say my watch got nicked in LA, culprit caught
redhanded, refuses adjudication and won't give restitution. So later
he's buying groceries in NYC, cash in hand and gold coins, like most
everybody else in this hypothetical anarchist society. You really
think Mr Rosenblum, of Rosenblum's Delicatessen And Coffee Bar, is
going to give a running jump about my watch? Hell, he wouldn't care if
had been nicked two blocks away, so long as it wasn't out font where
it would scare away the customers.

Beside this is the assumption that this minor watch theft has made the
national evening news. Which is vastly, vastly unrealistic. In any
large group of people there will be thugs, psychos, con artists etc
etc. Even in a massivly armed society, there are always hotheads.
Taken as a pretty much fixed minimum fraction of any group, for a
worldful of people or even a countryful, that's still a hell of a lot
more criminals than Joe Sixpack could memorize or care about.

This is the point at which most anarchist folks start building castles
in the air, composed of all-seeing, all-interfering insurance
companies, reputation tracking agencies, proof of identity, etc etc.
Bleh. Basically falling into the same mindset as Mr Martin: we need
statism, how can we get it? He's at least honest in asking for it
straight up.

Here's the problem with that, I'll spell it out: you aren't minding
your own damn business. And, you aren't expecting others to likewise
mind theirs, to want to mind theirs, whether it suits you or not.

Why should some stranger care about your woes? Why should they deprive
themselves of custom, because this guy nicked your watch or shot your
sister? Yeah credit agencies would care, but how many crooks try to
make honest purchases on credit? And as to insurance - the crooks
would simply go uninsured. As would most people - why would I want to
insure myself to drive, if the government didn't force me? I wouldn't
go on the road if I didn't trust myself to drive straight. And if I
fouled up, I'd pay from my own savings. Anyone with the temerity to
require me to self-insure with a company which would act as a little
mini government and boss me around, would get their dirty business
thrown back in their face.

So how would a real anarchist society deal with recalcitrant,
unrepentant crooks? Take a look at the few real (semi) anarchies. In
old Iceland, in Somalia, if the arbitration system broke down and
nothing could be agreed nor forgiven - it would be blood feud.

First, Robert Hutchinson asks how 280 million people can jointly own
property they've never seen. But that's nothing unusual. Almost
everyone now has some sort of pension fund which owns not only
government bonds but also shares in a huge variety of private
companies; which makes almost everyone a joint owner of a great deal
of property they are not individually aware of. Joint ownership of a
country is not so very different.

Many libertarians seem ready to assume that because governments often
act illegitimately, all public property is therefore unowned and up
for grabs. But this is nonsense. If it has been "stolen" from the
taxpayers, its ownership should revert to those taxpayers, one way or
another. Unless we follow the Marxists in denying the legitimacy of
property altogether, it is illogical to deny the reasonable rights of
property owners just because their title is cloudy or confused, since,
as the result of prior injustices and the fungibility of wealth, all
property titles are now cloudy, in varying degrees, and must always
remain so.

Citizenship rights would include the right to the protection of the
state and access to its courts. If you are willing to sit on your
half-acre and never leave, and defend it, without recourse to the
police or the courts, against anyone who may decide to bump you off
and take it, then you are not a citizen, but an independent; or, if
you like, you are a citizen of your own little private country (which,
chances are, will soon go the way of other little countries in the
big, bad world).

Second, Warren Tilson gives an interesting account of adulthood
through insurance. I regret that I don't quite understand what the
policy is supposed to be insuring against, or why it is necessary. Nor
do I understand how one ensures that the funds come from the child,
not somebody else (since one could simply give the money to the child
first).

Third, since we're still getting our knickers in a twist over the
"non-aggression" doctrine, let me suggest yet another tweaked-up
version (with acknowledgements to Jackson Lawson):

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right to
initiate the threat or use of force or fraud against another person,
or to advocate or delegate its initiation. A libertarian also accepts
responsibility for his own actions and makes good any harm he may do
another in breach of that person's rights."

The "making good" bit allows us to use a technically precise
definition of rights whereby it is logically impossible to have the
right to violate another's right, but, with restitution, it may still
be morally permissible to do so.

In my opinion the main problem with the TLE version is that it is all
too easy to Humpty Dumpty it into meaning almost anything you want it
to mean, and then reinterpret it another way when you want to say
something inconsistent with the first.

You wrote "Sure, I could call him out, but if I start fighting duels
with everyone who annoy’s me, the body count is going to get pretty
high."

Please note that to annoy you, your friend has to be near you.
If he's on your property, order him off. If you're on his property, go
home. If you're both on a third party's property, contact the owner
and say "He's annoying me. Can you get rid of him?". One or both of
you will be sent home. If he doesn't immediately leave, it's
trespassing. That's how you stop the idiots.

You wrote "When some used-car salesman stands at the head of an army
of Sheeple, how will we keep them from taking over our little
anarchist-utopia?"

Please note that the head of the army of sheeple is one person. How do
you prevent one person from attacking you?

You wrote "Europe could probably have avoided World-War II if France
and England had slapped Hitler down in the Rhineland, but he was not a
direct threat to them at the time, so guess what?"

If the United States had not entered WWI, Hitler would never have come
to power, so guess what?

Good job, Neil! As a 45 year-old libertarian of more than 15 years, I
have found TLE without a doubt the most effective vehicle for
awakening my friends and co-workers to the true ideals of the founders
of this country.

Thank you for once again hitting us between the eyes with that
desperately needed 2X4!

My seven-year old daughter is severely precocious and already
expresses sentiments from time to time which put her at odds with the
commissars of political correctness.

While taking her to school recently she said, "Dad? I'm worried that
when I'm older I won't know all of the laws. How many laws are there?"

"The last time anyone counted, Honey, there were over five million
laws."

Long pause. Dead silence.

I could practically feel the centrifugal force coming from the little
mental wheels turning in the back seat.

I held my tongue.

More silence.

"Daddy, if I ever become one of those people who "makes up" all those
laws, (this phrase and its implication was deliberate and did not go
unnoticed by Dad) I'm going to get rid of a whole bunch of them.

"That way there won't be nearly as many people in jail, everyone will
be happier and there will be a lot less fighting."

When she's older, I'm going to tell her that she was a libertarian
before she even knew what the term meant.

These essays by Bob Murphy show the importance that insurance would
have in a free area.

While I have had my concept of declared maturity through insurance
kicking around on my hard drive long before I had heard of Murphy I
was pleased to see we were thinking along the same lines regarding
insurance. Reading these essays will give the reader a good sense of
where I am coming from.

Jeff Colonnesi wrote:

That is not a good idea as to how to get the whole "when someone
is an adult" into the private sector. It has the same problems as
mandatory car insurance does, with a couple others added in for
good measure.

First off, as Warren stated, such a policy would have to be
purchased with their own money or else it would be pointless. But
how will a child (by definition, anyone who does not yet have said
insurance) get their own money? Allowance and gifts from their
parents are the same as if the parents bought said policy. As long
as they are a "child", technically they can't have their own
money. Its all considered in trust with their parents. That lets
the parents decide when, or if, the child will ever be considered
an adult.

Children will get their money the way they do now, or used to anyway,
via doing small jobs for neighbors, recycling cans and newspapers,
making and selling citrus juices, making and selling crafts, paper
routes, dog walking, leaf raking, lawn mowing, caddying, and so forth.
In addition to money, these little jobs will provide a wealth of
references for the prospective adult when it is time to approach an
insurance carrier.

The older the child gets the more money she is going to accumulate, it
would be difficult for even the nosiest most controlling parents to be
able to expropriate all of it. Eventually, the child will have enough
to get free. In a Market Anarchy there will be so many jobs going
unfilled that it is hard to imagine a child not having an opportunity
to make some money outside of an allowance.

Requiring a someone to purchase insurance (I am assuming some type
of liability insurance) opens the door to abuses of the system by
parents and allows for the creation of a two tiered class system.
Furthermore, allowing insurance companies to cancel the policy on
a person, and thus return them to the state of non-adulthood,
opens up the possibility of abuses by con artists and shady
business operators. Lastly, it allows insurance companies to
regulate what is allowed for adults more thoroughly than
government could. Here are a few examples I thought of:

1) A parent decides, for the child's own good of course, that they
are "too young" to be allowed to buy the insurance. The child, of
course, has no money of their own - all of it being controlled by
the parent. What happens when a parents idea of "too young" is 25?
Or 35? What if the reason they don't want the child to be allowed
to become and adult is that the child has a significant trust fund
that the parent is managing for them?

I addressed that in the graph above, in the case of a parent somehow
enslaving a child to the extent above I would say that the social
pressures and thus the potential for ostracism by the community will
mitigate such things. In addition, as the child gets older the cost to
the parents of insuring her will go up. Unless the child is retarded,
such control will be resented and rebelled against. This has the
potential of costing the insurer money, as there may be personal or
property damage that has to be covered. At some point the parents will
not be able to afford the consequences.

2) A business owner, whose parents are dead, has been defrauding
consumers. Knowing that his scams are beginning to unravel, and
that he will be found out within a year or so, he does something
so as to convince the insurance company to cancel his policy and
revert him to non-adulthood. He has the money hidden away to live
comfortably, and a friend who - for a cut of the money - will play
"parent" for a year or two while the person avoids responsibility
for the scam.

I fail to see how a scammer could generate enough money in the first
place. But if he did, and tried that scheme the cost of insuring him
will be very high for this friend. The insurer might just drop the
friend entirely rather than knowingly be part of a fraud. Even if
successful in his scheme, that is no protection from the people he
scammed in the past. Life or medical insurance might be very hard to
come by. ...

3) A person, living in a low income area, whose parents are both
known addicts and considered "high risk" by insurance companies,
finds themselves also considered "high risk". They, like their
parents,find they cannot afford to purchase the policy and also
supportthemselves.

They then find themselves perpetually relegated to a lower class,
unable to enter legally enforceable contracts or even buy the
means to protect themselves without having someone who can afford
the insurance cosign for them. In effect, they have been relegated
to a status close to that of a slave.

Why would the child be high risk? Even so, given the number of
economic opportunities, the child should be able to crawl out of the
loser pit her parents are in. In a Market Anarchy there will be more
opportunity for Horatio Algers than we have now. If the parents choose
to stagnate and rot and the child follows their example, why should
anyone care?

4) It becomes common practice for insurance companies to consider
owning firearms as a "high risk" behavior. After all, they have to
pay out if you hurt someone else, where they don't have to if you
just happen to be raped and killed in a back alley. Soon, all the
major insurance companies refuse to insure a person who carries,
or even owns, a firearm. Only the small ones, like Billy-Joe-Bobs
Guns, Bait and Beer (insurance in the back) will. Since many
respectable businesses are hesitant to do business with someone
insured through such a small operator, people are left with a
choice of giving up their guns, or of being extremely limited as
to who they can deal with.

Insurance companies base their decisions on actuarial charts. These
would show that owning firearms are not high risk. Any company that
tried to manipulate the statistics to such an end would find itself
being run out of business. Any insurance I purchase had better payoff
in case of injury or death or I would not purchase their policy. In
addition, I would not buy insurance from a company that did not
respect my right to self-defense. Given the number of gun owners now
and the likelihood that the percentage will increase in a free area,
any company of any type that shows a disrespectful attitude towards
gun owners will have committed economic suicide. K-Mart or Smith &
Wesson anyone?

I appreciate the response, through I must say it mirrors, in tone,
some of the arguments I get from statists on the viability of a Market
Anarchy.

Let's take my friend for example, we'll just call him Richard for
a moment. Richard has a tendency to proselytize, and while he will
respect my wishes when I tell him to buzz-off, let's suppose he
decided not to. Let's say that Richard just keeps after me, not
enough to really be called harassment, but he just refuses to let
it go. Nothing he does violates my rights per se, he's not
trespassing or doing anything to threatening me, he is just
bothering me.

Why, exactly, are you incapable of escaping his proselytizing?
Certainly, if he annoys you so, you won't be visiting his property,
and you can prevent him from visiting yours.

Sure, I could call him out, but if I start fighting duels with
everyone who annoy's me, the body count is going to get pretty
high.

Your annoying friends must be awfully gullible to agree to dueling
over some Bible-thumping.

So I demand arbitration, and the judge (or whatever we call them)
agrees with me and orders Richard to stop, what if he doesn't?

The judge will quickly lose business for agreeing to hear such
frivolous and unwarranted arbitration. To be frank, in the scenario
you've described, it won't be Richard the community will shun . . . it
will be YOU.

What this all boils down to is the simple fact that a society that
has no structure capable of organizing the efforts and abilities
of it's people will be unable to cope certain threats.

You incorrectly assume that such structures cannot exist in anarchy. I
would direct you to a PDF file of an essay by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, The
Private Production of Defense
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf. I would also
suggest that you peruse the articles over at http://www.anti-state.com
for numerous insights on arbitration, full property rights,
and many other sticking points regarding market anarchism (blatant
plug).

While I completely disagree with the conclusions you reach, I do find
your arguments enlightening. It brings to mind the very same arguments
that came up a dozen years ago in USENet. And I think the arguments
raised then might be interesting to you now.

The extremist Richards of the world, and I also know a few, are dealt
with by not initiating fraud or coersion. Since they do not wield
physical injury, physical retaliation is uncalled for, as you point
out. However, you don't take the "anarchist" answer to the logical
extreme even though you use a logical extreme as the antagonist. I
consider this to be the mistake that causes you to reach a wrong
conclusion.

You address arbitration, but you don't note that Richard has agreed to
the arbitration. By deliberately violating your privacy and self
determination after such arbitration, he has taken the deliberate step
of initiating fraud against you.

In the fully rational anarchist non-state, we further assume that the
only "crime" is where someone has fraud or coersion initiated against
them. Richard owes you big time compensation.

Where does that compensation come from? You address social pressure,
but again do not take it far enough. Such a person as Richard would be
uninsurable, since they would never stop in their efforts of
conversion. The successful claims against them would mount up such
that no matter how "nice" he was otherwise, his evangelical enthusiasm
would make him a total paria and outlaw. A record of such harassment
would mean that at some point "no jury would convict you."

Yes, indeed, I do consider dueling to be a perfectly reasonable answer
to this problem, when such a problem is as impossibly extreme as you
suggest. In fact, considering the extreme of the example you pose, I
would consider repeated violation of arbitration in the matter as
grounds for your defense in the use of physical self defense against
him. At some point, determined by a jury and the "social standard",
simple trespass may very well justify lethal self defense.

As time passes, I am reminded repeatedly that an armed society is a
friendly society. Richard is not friendly. He is a hostile force,
repeatedly demonstrating that he cannot live peacefully with people
who disagree with him. The disagreement is not the source of the
problem, even total disagreement can be addressed with the fact that
the freedom to associate includes the freedom to NOT associate.
Richard does not respect your freedom to not associate with him.

Which leads me to wonder, how do people deal with the Richards of the
world now? By polite request, by "arbitration" in the form of
restraining orders, and when a pattern of violations is proven, by
physical restraint. No different than in a anarchist non-state, but
the anarchist system is far more polite and restrained at the
beginning because no pattern of abuse has been yet established.

And that is, I think, the reason anarchy works very well: It is the
embodyment of "innocent unless proven guilty". There is no "state"
that can make you a criminal at the stroke of a pen.

(Darn, in the never-never land again, too big for a letter to the
editor, too short for an article.)

This is in response to the article by William Stone in TLE #164
wherein he bemoaned the fact that you can no longer go to the gate at
the airport to say goodbye to somebody, due to the new "security"
regulations.

The solution to this is very simple. Buy an unrestricted, fully-
refundable ticket (to anywhere, it doesn't matter) for a flight
leaving within a reasonable amount of time close to the one that the
person you want to say goodbye to (or meet on arrival) is going to be
on. Then go on to the security checkpoint, show them the ticket, and
when you get through, call the airline and cancel the reservation and
get your money back.

Granted, you would still be submitting to the "system" and not
addressing the issue of whether all this crap is appropriate in the
first place, but at least it would provide a practical method of
dealing with it.

In case anybody wants to compliment me on my creativity (or criticize
me for my deviousness), thank you, but I will guarantee you, the
airline employees thought of this a long time before I did.

Thanks for taking the time to write me, Edwin. I probably should have
been a little clearer, though, for those of the readership unused to
living in a small town or city.

The Siouxland metropolitan are (which includes Sioux City, Iowa, South
Sioux City, Nebraska, and North Sioux City, South Dakota) is
approximately 100,000 individuals.

We are sandwiched dead center between two much larger areas, Sioux
Falls, South Dakota (approximately 200,000) and Omaha, Nebraska
rapidly approaching a million).

Market forces being what they are, the Omaha and Sioux City airports
are much larger than ours, have always attracted more carriers and far
more destinations. In fact, our major airline (Northwest) only flies
to Minneapolis.

The airport is very small by most metropolitan standards. It has two
gates, only one of which is a jetway, a small baggage claim area, and
a little cafe.

In fact, the main health club in Sioux City has at least twice the
square footage as the airport.

So when I mentioned not being able to see my wife off at the gate, I
was essentially talking about the twenty feet from the security area
to the gate. While this is relatively trivial, it nevertheless was
upsetting to my daughters.

However, what made me angry was the outside of the airport.

The jetway from our one jet gate goes parallel to the cafe -- and then
extends beyond the cafe some fifty yards. Outside, behind the cafe and
parallel to the jetway and aircraft, is an employee parking area.

Prior to Bloody Tuesday, we could see my wife off at the gate and then
go to the employee parking area to wave at her through the window (we
always choose the window seat in the exit row on the three side -- the
seat with the most room on any aircraft).

We could wave to her, watch the jetway pull back, sit in the deafening
thunder of the jet engines, watch the aircaft push back, taxi, and
take off.

This was somehow a much more emotionally satisfying experience for my
daughters than leaving Mommy at the security area.

It is that aspect of small-town life that I was referring to as having
been obliterated by the Federal police state -- and which,
unfortunately, simply having a ticket for the flight won't return.

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right,
under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act
consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they
realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are
not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim. Except in the
case of subparagraph B, addendum 33, reference 7, or as further
modified."

As the committee continues to debate this, the NIP is growing to
elphantine proportions. It's not okay to initiate force, but...

But, but, but.

I've always considered the NIP to be an inherently unworkable formula,
based on how I define such words as "initiate", "force", and "is."

To me, it translates more simply as "Don't throw the first punch/fire
the first shot."

Good general principle, but I can see times and places where I would
find it necessary to initiate the force. Somebody sticks a firearm in
my face, by my definition they have not initiated force, rather they
have offered the threat of it. Regardless, it's not the sort of
behavior I take lightly, and given the opportunity you're damn
straight I will initiate some force of my own against the aggressor.
Don't worry about delegation or any such, though. I handle my own
probs.

Sad to say, you probably can't create a be-all, end-all moral
statement in the English language that is at once definitive enough to
encompass all situations yet flexible enough to be workable. The
ongoing debate here is evidence of that.

Just take a look at what's floating around here now. Mr. Long stated
definitively that harmful words could be considered an initiation of
force in his recent article. "Likewise, you do not have the right to
initiate force by stabbing someone with words."

Well if verbal attacks are to be considered part of the formula, Mr.
Smith goes into the books as one of the most egregious violators of
his own principal.

Somehow, I think Mr. Smith's definition of force differs a bit.

Now to step on a few of my own brass tacks, because I don't have an
answer either. If I could formulate the few sentences that at once
allows the world to function in reasonable fashion without having the
Evil that Taxes riding all our shoulders, you folks would be the first
to hear it.

Then I'd write a dozen books, make off with my newfound wealth to a
remote desert island where I could surround myself with well-paid
dancing girls and let the world spin 'round.

The letter noted from Richard E. Pearl to the National Republican
Committee was of particular interest to me in pointing out many of the
specifics of how the present government has failed us as
"individuals." Unfortunately all U.S. governments since the time of
the Whiskey Rebellion (1794) have sought to impose their will on the
citizens.

I find it naive that many of the writings I see today seem to suggest
that this government oppression is new to our time and quote
historical sayings as if the citizenry were not oppressed centuries
ago as well as today.

Yes folks, the Commander-in-Chief of the forces that crushed the
Whiskey Rebellion was none other than our first President -- George
Washington. While he apparently pardoned most of those caught and
convicted; it was still a demonstration of the new government's power
to tax and enforce.

No disparagement intended to Mr. Pearl, who I thought wrote an
excellent letter -- just a general commentary that "we" seem to think
things are happening to "us" that have not happened both here and
around the world from time immemorial.

Why? It seems like there an innate "need" in humans to congregate,
just like most other animals, in groups. This tends to result in a
"leader" and then there are "chiefs" around those in "power" which
seek not only to keep their own "members" in line but to extend their
influence over whatever territory and denizens they deem within their
span of control. Of course there is always the "lone wolf" but
generally the flock or herd or tribe or city dwelling model or group
or flock of some type prevails.

Thus, when we are affiliated with some others we humans are expected
to abide, more or less, by the general behavior of that group or risk
punishment (corporal, derisive, ostracism, etc.) for not so doing; be
it the LP or GOP or al Qadeh or Mafia.

Taking that into perspective are we "free" to choose our group or are
we born into it or forced into it? What if we choose to opt out? Can
those who govern the group we were once affiliated with affect our
choice of change? Rhetorical answers: Yes if they have "power" (IRS
over former tax payers who no longer opt to pay taxes; Union over
Confederacy in the Civil War); but no if they do not (LP, GOP,
voluntary general church and civil affiliations.) What if we never
"intentionally" opted into a group do they still have power over us?
Yes, war would be a good example.

By opting out of one group are we not in essence trying to influence
the prior group by our actions or do so in concert with others?
In essence, are we not "just as good or bad" in our thoughts, actions
and affiliations as anyone else in theirs?

After all is it not generally true that we affiliate with others of
like mind and seek others to become like minded so that we have a
wider community of "self interest?"

Certainly whomever is in control is going to widen their sphere of
influence for their own benefit and for those who benefit them whether
by persuasion or force. The point: "government" believes what they do
for you is good for you since it is good for "government." Example:
animal husbandry where the animals are used to the maximum benefit,
i.e. milked (taxed) to the point of maximum production but not to the
point where they cease giving milk. Thus, the farmer needs to care for
his flock so that they care for the farmer, e.g. not let them eat
"loco weed" (drugs) or other "bad" substances (tobacco, alcohol) which
may influence their desire or ability to produce milk. Most certainly
not to let them be stolen or injured or killed by outside forces. Only
the farmer (in his opinion) has the "right" to take care of his
chattel.

Unfortunately "we" my not always agree with the farmer/government as
to what is best but being constantly told that the farmer/government
(F/G) knows best as to what we should see and hear and do and let's us
know about that. Sometimes we have a little liberty to graze and as
long as we give milk we are allowed that since the F/G seems to know
that feeling of limited freedom in the pasture (most of us cannot see
the fence since we are laying down chewing our cud) seems to help him
get a steady supply of milk.

Government will do whatever it takes to keep itself in power and as
long as the tax revenues roll in they will spend them on more and more
programs to get more and more contented cows into the program because,
unlike the farmer, the government has a tax on about everything
including the fast food that the cows consume, i.e. more stupid cows
that slop at the trough (vote and eat at fast food restaurants)
instead of going out to the feed lot (grocery store and saving money)
the more the F/G makes to spend on itself.

Thus, while the sheep may bleat and GI's bitch they are generally
going to give milk or kill "mad cows" since if they do not the F/G may
cull them from the herd and still have lots of sheeple to milk/tax; or
if you are a real fecund yew or stud ram feed you and pamper you
(welfare) and let you breed more kids since the F/G's "wealth" is in
the size and productivity of the governed flock.

Interestingly it seems that one does not have the option, except by
express renouncement which may or not be effective (tax protestors for
example) to opt out of control of the government into which they were
born or in which they reside or in which they commit a crime as
decreed by that government on its territory or even on another
territory if decreed by another offended country.

John Walker Lindh might be an illustration of one born in the U.S. but
apparently changed allegiance; or bin Laden born in Saudi Arabia. I am
not sure that either ever "accepted" the dictates of their mother
country; nor that they "renounced" their citizenship or that their
respective birth countries even have the "right" to claim them as
"citizens" or to take "citizenship" from them. Brings up an
interesting question as to how one becomes a "citizen." Surely
naturalization is a way but is birth the only other way? If the latter
is correct then it implies that you are citizen/chattel of the country
in which you happen to have been born, or if outside the country then
of the nationality of the parents, in the same way the offspring of an
animal is the property of the owner of the animals that produced the
offspring.

But what is citizenship worth if one country can hold the person of
another country (we have U.S. citizens in custody all over the world
about which the U.S. mainly does nothing); or a country declare war on
the citizens of another country (U.S. v. Afghanistan). If that can be
done then why does not the U.S. simply impose a "tax" on the world?
Really if you can kill them and invade their country why not just
conquer it and tax it? Been done throughout history.

Ah but what a pain to have to station and pay troops and get a lot of
disgruntled cows. Witness the breakups of empires over the centuries.
Given that all those in power want is power then why not share power
and make the cattle content and give more milk/taxes resources by
supporting local F/G's that give their cows a feeling of contentment
(or forced labor as the case may be) and unite them into a central
farming cooperative to make life easy for those in control of the
various ranches/countries all linked up with a central cooperative
(Sunkist/U.N.) so that there is more produce/tax and the F/G's can
live in relative peace and avoid a lot of messy cattle stampedes.

Yep, dehorn the cattle and slowly raise the containment fence and make
them feel treated better until the world has nice peaceful containment
units. Great plan. Now if the various growers/ranchers (governments)
would agree to peace amongst themselves and cooperate think about what
a great world it would be?!?

Sorry for such a long commentary but Mr. Pearl brought up some very
cogent points that started me thinking about "why" most governments
seem to get away with as much as they do for as long as they do it.
Probably because the encroachments are slow and only affect a few at a
time and when there are enough of those the others seem to think that
is the "proper behavior" and then they too start to act the way the
F/G's propaganda and programs have prodded them in to.

So, yes you can in many countries opt out of your party, you can (at
least here in the U.S.) opt out of your state. Can you opt out of your
country? Maybe. Can you opt out of taxes? Certainly. Simply become a
criminal and if your organization gets enough power or your country
causes enough trouble you will be "paid" one way or another to keep
just enough hatred and discontent going that the sheeple perceive a
need for the F/G.

Can you opt out of the planet Earth? Unlikely? With enough money or
the ability to grow your own you can sail or hang out in some jungle
or on an island and you will not be bothered because you can do no
harm nor have any influence over F/G affairs.

However, for most people on the planet as long as the F/G does not
give sheeple too much trouble the sheeple will always opt for the
status quo. This is particularly true if they are trained to believe
and accept it as the norm which is "comfortable 'enough" for them that
anything else becomes unthinkable. Husky's and work horses probably
consider their life as pretty wonderful since they are well taken care
of in reward for their exertions.

In this country producers of milk/taxes are rewarded too by NOT being
punished. Non-producers of the milk/tax are also rewarded (welfare) as
long as they cause no trouble for the F/G and the F/G retains control
of them and they encourage the F/G to continue its practices. Non-
producers do not even have to get up/vote as long as the F/G retains
control over enough of them that do get up/vote.

For people where starvation, malnutrition or hardship is the norm they
are not encouraged to know better. A small farmer or hunter or herder
is quite happy when he has food. He does not quarrel with the F/G and
the F/G does not have to take care of them since they probably have no
or little contact with the F/G since they have nothing the F/G wants
from them and they ask nothing of the F/G. Why don't the dictatorships
and developing nations want western culture to seep in? You got it,
people might want it. Keep them in the dark, train them to dislike the
West, demonize the West as the West deamonizes them and you can
control a mighty band of souls/troops on either side and you can have
"fun" making war.

Say your piece and influence as you can! John Lennon had great
influence and his was mainly a voice of peace that John (the name
apparently was given because his parents were great fans of the
Beatles) Walker Lindh seems not to have heard.

Recently, some data has been released by the media concerning the
Canadian government's futile war on drugs. According to the report:
The rate of marijuana arrests has increased by 34% since 1991; about
86% of those charged were under the age of 25. Of the 66,500 drug
incidents in Canada in 1997, more than 70%, or 47,908 were marijuna-
related. Of these, two-thirds, or about 32,682 were for possession.
According to a Canadian Medical Association report, approximately
3,000 Canadians are incarcerated annually for possession of marijuana.

Hi John & TLE readers. Thought this
http://www.rense.com/general20/un.htm was interesting. I guess the
corollary to this is that any attempted arrest by a federal agent is
the equivalent of a death sentence. I briefly skimmed over the record
(www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/011862P.pdf) and it's truly
phenomenal how the government calmly & dryly explains why a man, whose
life has already been totally destroyed, must be mentally incompetent
because he became angry about it, instead of just going along
quietly & politely like a sheep.

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within
the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe

Since seeing the most recent of the Lord of the Rings movies, I've
been wondering what bothered me most about it. The effects are fine,
but the emasculation of Frodo at the ford, as mentioned in TLE before,
and that his escape from the orc raid was not his own doing, bothered
me greatly. I finally realized what it is: Aragorn is relegated to
minor-player status.

In the book, Elrond states, "...for the Ring of Isildur concerns him
closely", and the Sword that was Broken is reforged and renamed by him
at that time. And that's not to mention that the third book is
named for him! Not so in this movie, the Sword is a holy relic
left in Rivendell when the Fellowship sets out.

However, concerning the many references seen in TLE about how the Lord
of the Rings is about the eschewing of political power: go pick up The
Return of the King, read the two chapters "Homeward Bound", and "The
Scouring of the Shire".

One of the reasons that I've re-read TLOTR several times, and have at
this moment reached chapter "The Scouring..." is because I see fresh
insights every time I read it. From the perspective of Liberty, these
two chapters are inspiring. Rather than ruin it for anyone who is
experiencing the book(s) for the first time, or that has not read it,
I will forsake the joy of telling you in detail about it.

It is my second fondest wish that were I in a similar position, I
could stand as tall as those haflings.

Death by "Gun Control": The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament,
by Aaron Zelman and Richard W. Stevens. The new book from JPFO.

Why does JPFO exist? What motivates us year after year? You can find the
answers in our brand new book.

People have asked us to present the whole JPFO argument in one place. We
have done it. Available now in an easy-reading format and a handy size, the new
book is entitled Death by Gun Control: The Human Cost of Victim
Disarmament.

The message is simple: Disarmed people are neither free nor safe - they
become the criminals' prey and the tyrants' playthings. When the civilians are
defenseless and their government goes bad, however, thousands and millions of
innocents die.